Deciding When to Put American Lives at Risk

Re “Bush Seems Unfazed by Setbacks,” Feb. 11: It has been interesting to note the haughty tone of the Defense Department’s nickel diplomacy -- it hints of the term “doublespeak,” coined by George Orwell in his book “1984.” Violating another country’s sovereignty under the guise of exporting democracy is specious; the argument for disarmament is better, yet an unprovoked attack in this instance will surely erode our future diplomatic authority. Furthermore, the thought of sacrificing any lives in response to an implied threat is intolerable, and risking the lives of our American soldiers in response to an implied threat ... close to insane.

Christopher Samuelian

Newport Beach

*

The war on Iraq is both justified and moral. Those who cry that war will bring increased risk of terror are living in denial. Even if we continue to bury our heads in the sand, we still are at great risk of strikes from fanatical terrorists, whether associated with Saddam Hussein or not. Will we endlessly debate the threat of terrorists, despite its clear reality as displayed on 9/11? To blame the United States for such displays of hatred is grossly anti-American. It will take no further action on the part of the U.S. to sustain the hatred toward our country by fanatics.

We have time and again put our soldiers at risk to protect the world from such bullies as Hussein (who, many conveniently forget, has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people) and now, in the era of terror, we do so to protect ourselves from such tactics. We are taking the moral high ground, as we did in World War I and WW II, in an effort to protect our way of life and to give others a chance at freedom. There is indeed a new world order at hand: The enemy will not stop pursuing its goals of domination and destruction of the U.S. What will we do in response?

Lisa Axe

Blue Jay, Calif.

*

Who’da thunk it? Historical enemies like France, Russia, Germany and Belgium stand in agreement and solidarity over a political cause. China advocates peace and restraint. Truly, President Bush is upholding his campaign promise to be a consensus-builder.

Karen Greenbaum-Maya

Claremont

*

France, Germany and Belgium (the “axis of weasel”) stand adamantly opposed to the other 16 members of NATO, which support our president in his determination to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq. Who is practicing unilateralism and being obstinate?

David Schechter

Los Angeles

*

U.N. inspectors are looking for weapons of mass destruction in all the wrong places while they are right out there in plain sight -- the oil fields of mass destruction.

Rafiq Kalu

Riverside

*

It is becoming more and more apparent as each day passes that the real threat to peace and stability is not Hussein, it is Bush and his arrogant, reckless administration. This is the most shameful presidency since Richard Nixon’s. November 2004 cannot come soon enough.

John Smart

Los Angeles